that's his perception. that there's a distance created by the white house by congress. congress is about prerogatives and legislative power that israel. when you -- that is real. when you possess it, the respected. republicans feel it and it's intensifying through these debates that they do not get the respect they deserve. >> particularly with mitch mcconnell and john boehner, two of the best legislators of their time, guys get a getting back room deals cut, it takes people rolling up their sleeves and being able to work with one another. they do not have relationships with the president. he does not have a long a legislative record, he treats congress as though it were a nuisance more or less with regard to libya and has told them they no longer have the prerogative to declare war or even approve of it.

these are not good ways to impress upon them they will negotiate in good faith. >> to be fair to the president, he would say wait a minute, mitch mcconnell told you before the election in 2010 that the number one priority for the house and senate republicans was to make me a one-term president. that was an incredibly a partisan, aggressive bard's the -- broadside even before the votes were counted. so don't expect me to roll over with this guy. he wants me out. they have a sense about mcconnell's partisan angle. >> there is no doubt they are huge partisans. everyone in town is. they would not be in this position of the or not. typically presidents and top members of congress work harder to establish relationships with each other. >> we now know that next week will be a week with a filibuster about the debt ceiling and at

least 12 senators are aligned in their desire for a debt ceiling raised that as a caveat like a balanced budget america -- balanced budget amendment. >> which you cannot pass in this set. >> 80% of senators are against it. >> thank you very much. >> on capitol hill, the senate was scheduled to take a weeklong break, but the majority leader announced senators will return on tuesday to continue talks on the debt and deficit. the government will reach its debt ceiling limit on august 2nd. lawmakers need at least a week to raise the limit and get it through the house and senate. they've set a deadline of july 22nd to reach an agreement. senators will start the week working on a motion dealing with military operations in libya. there are in at 2:00 eastern on tuesday with a procedural at 5:00.

the house returns after 6:30. it will be working on the 2012 defense spending bill. next, former white house green jobs advisor, van jones, as calling for progress of stew unified under a single banner. the event begins with brief remarks about the 2012 congressional campaign. this event is part of the annual net ruination conference in minneapolis. this is about 35 minutes. >> we were asked to take on the responsibilities of the deep

trouble see to take back the house, recruit good candidates and help them across the finish line. when we took over, we had decisions to be made. should we recruit conservative candidates? >> i don't think so. >> things like that are tough. since we are in a room here with some of our most important donors and checkwriters of people who raised millions for our progressive candidates across the country, i thought we should ask a similar question of you. should we recruit conservative candidates to run against progressives? i thought i saw a memo that said we should. >> we should recruited good candidates so we can get the house of representatives back. >> when we have a democratic primary, we should stay out of it and let the local democrats decide who their nominee is and then we will be there to back them. >> and we will beat them and take the house back. >> the donors and people to raise money in this room will be

one of the biggest parts of that. we have 24 seats between us and majority in congress. so we want to show you the difference between a democratic majority and a republican majority. democratic party -- making college more affordable. fiscal responsibility, making college loans more affordable and we ended wasteful loans to banks. we did that in our first year. [applause] >> of the gop republican priority no. 5 was the reckless domestic budget which extends tax breaks for big oil, cuts education, lifesaving medical research. it cost americans 1.7 million jobs by 2014 with 900,000 jobs lost next year. let's get rid of these guys. >> another example of what the democrats do what we are in the

majority -- the children's health insurance program, providing health care for 4 million more children. we did that right out of the gate when the democrats took the majority. >> i get to do all of the republican priorities and you get to the democratic priorities? here is what they get -- if they don't have health care, don't get sick. there repealed patients' rights and limited health care for 32 million americans and allow insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. they increased premiums for families and small businesses. boo. >> when the democrats had the majority, we pass the american recovery a reinvestment act cause save the economy from going off the brink, cut sad -- cut taxes for small businesses and invested in building american and the structure at home. >> you did it to me again.

they opposed confronting big oil for high prices. the bp bills or eliminate real environmental safety reviews and denied efforts for big oil to reduce their subsidies. we are subsidizing them and they are protecting speculators from driving oil prices up. have you bought attack of gasoline this week? -- have you brought a tank of gasoline this week? they brought down anti price gouging legislation for consumers. >> what is at democratic priority no. 2? >> wall street reform. ending taxes and the funding of bailout and the idea of too big to fail. protecting and empowering consumers to make the best decisions of mortgages, credit cards and our own financial future. >> what else did the republicans do? one of their top priorities -- abortion politics.

and in funding for planned parenthood and not just -- all of their reproductive health services, developing a faugh -- devastating it and denying access to preventative care from hiv testing to cancer screening. that was one of their top priorities. they've had that is part of several bills they've used to move through. >> i would have done that one. what were our priorities? affordable health care. we provided 32 million americans with of caromed prohibited insurance companies from discriminating in against preexisting conditions, lowering costs for family of small businesses and drug costs for our seniors. that is the democratic party. >> again, number one gop priority, and medicare. ending it medicare.

i would be hard-pressed to find anyone in this audience and the country who would share that. telophase up the medicare guarantee of health care for a repeat. what is clear here is elections matter. -- they want to phase out medicare. all of our candidates will be better than theirs and our leadership team -- that is what we need your help to do. >> how do we do it? >> how do we do it? >> we recruit candidates. do we have a message about a future for the american people? we have a feature about bringing this economy out of the brink of failure into success. do we have a message going from one generation to the next for the american people? do we have a message the says no to big oil?

mss says no to special interests and the financial interests who want to take us out. do we have a message that says for the 2% to get away with every tax break you can imagine. that's our message and that's what we run on. that's what we need your help with and we have to do what? we have to recruit candidates. >> you guys are a big part of that. you are some of our biggest donors and fund-raisers. you are more important that all those lobbyists. what you and your friends do is raise billions of dollars for our progressive candidates. we know in the absence of publicly financed connection -- elections that it's going to take all this in this room to win a progressive majority and a democratic majority in the house of representatives. >> so here is what we are doing. to progressives chairing the red

to blue committee. this is good, but we need your help. we cannot do it without you. your job is not to be a mouthpiece or an arm of the genera -- or an arm of the democratic party. in communities and districts all across the country, you have to raise the issues that are of concern to the american people and point out that candidates are going to make a difference and who will return the gavel to the speaker pelosi. we know the difference between a gavel with nancy pelosi and a gavel with john boehner. is that right? can we get your help for 2012? >> i think we can do better. >> can we get your help for 2012? absolutely. let's take it to them. >> thank you. [applause]

>> ladies and gentleman, a man who needs no introduction, please welcome van jones. [applause] >> good, good, good. what happened? i'm back. [applause] but you all look different. last year i was here, you're all depressed, sad, mopey, grumpy,

despairing. this year, you are fired up. i think you are ready to fight again. i'm not surprised and i will tell you why not. i watched this movement we have built the go from hope to heartbreak. i have watched our values slandered. i've watched our leaders attacked. i've watched our organization destroyed. and i have watched many of the people in this room go deep, deep belem and find some -- a deep, deep down and find something in you that you did not know was there.

i am sick of us getting kicked around. i am sick and tired of it. one thing i can guarantee, but there is one thing i need your help with. the fight back has begun. the mainstream media want to ignore it and we expect that. but the fight back has already begun. as extraordinary as madison was, that's not the great exception. that's a great example. i guarantee you people about this country feel the same way you do in their tens of millions. we are not alone. we are not marginal voices that we want -- that they want to pretend we are. i've been all over this country and i've talked to 30,000 people in rooms just like this. people are ready to stand up again for the best in this country. i guarantee you the labour route -- the labor movement who is under such vicious attack will

fight back and fight back well. i guarantee you that. [applause] these millennial, these young people who are graduating off the cliff into the worst economy in two generations, the worst economy since world war two, it doesn't matter if they finish college dropout, it doesn't matter if they finish high school dropout, they wind up on the same couch. these young people are not going to stay on the couch. they're going to demand the economy with a place for them in it. they're not going to put up with this, i guarantee you. i guarantee these young veterans who are coming home, we put them in a military battle ground and we bring them home and dump them off in an economic battle ground with no hope,

little help, some people in d.c. want to cut back even more, and now 17 suicide attempts a day for our young veterans coming home. if we can stand with them when their overseas, we should stand by and now they're fighting for jobs, respect and dignity in this country. they're not going to stand for this and they should not stand alone. [applause] we are a better country than this. i guarantee you they are going to fight. homeowners -- american homeowners who bailed out the banks. it was american homeowners and taxpayers who bailed out these banks. had it not been for the generosity of the american people, the bankers themselves would be homeless.

the bankers themselves would be homeless. america does not know these banks, these banks owed the united states of america and the need to start respecting the people they're trying to throw a lot of their houses. [applause] we the people, who stood with them in a crisis, now want to jack up our credit card rates and pass out eviction notices. we're not going to stand for this. people are going to fight. here is what i cannot guarantee you. here is what there is no guarantee of except for our commitment and our willingness as a movement to meet the challenge. yes, all of these people will fight. the people fighting against citizens united will fight. the people fighting against the abuses on wall street will fight. people fighting against tuition cuts will fight.

asians, native americans, lesbians, gays, who are fighting against discrimination will fight and fight well. this is guaranteed. the question is will we fight together? or will we fight alone? that's the question. can we fight together finally? finally, can we find a way to fight together? we have a common enemy. we face a common peril. the common thread we all face is we have forces now gaining momentum in our country who are committed to one thing and one thing in. -- one thing only. they are committed to killing the american dream. that's their agenda. they want to kill the american

dream. some of the all are liberals. -- some of you all are liberals. we might have a few progressives in here. so let me make sure you understand what i mean when i say killing the american dream. i'm not talking about killing the american fantasy. the american fantasy -- everybody is going to be rich. if you buy a lot of things you will be happy. that's the american fantasy that has led to an american nightmare. that needs to go. we don't believe in that. [applause] about something much deeper than that. something we had in this country before the commercial weiser's turned it into something else. -- the commercializers turned into something else.

that if you are willing and able to work, you can walk to your front door and go to a dignified job, put in a good day's work and come back home with a paycheck you can feed your family with and give your children a better life. that's the american dream. that's what our parents and grandparents fought for and we should not let it take away from us on our watch. that's the american dream. [applause] we have dreamed killers. they have a wrecking ball agenda for our country. a wrecking ball for america. but they have painted that wrecking ball red white and blue -- radical white, and blue. and they think we're going to stand here and salute their wrecking ball, wheat -- they have another thought coming. it is time for the deep patriots to stand up to the cheap patriots. it's time for the deep patriots

who love this country and to love everybody in this country no matter what color you are or who you want to marry or what kind of piercing you have your nose, we love everybody. we are the deep patriots, they are the cheap patriots. i'm tired of them questioning us and what we stand for. are we going to stand together? what me tell you something. i've done a little study. i'm a nerd. i got in trouble for saying some dirty things, but i've done some studying and i tried to figure out what might bring us together. we have a common fight against these dream killers. can we march under a common banner? we know what it feels like when we do. let me show you.

you may remember before the obama campaign, the way we were organized into all of these little silos. if i had a longer scream, i would have more silos. i'm not excluding your group, [inaudible] talk to me afterwards. but stick with me. we were all divided into our silos. every now and then, we would have a coalition. remember those? how did that work out for you? that is psychotherapy, coalition.

a lot can -- along came barack obama. a meta-g to call this brand. i have some millennial friends. i'm trying to keep it slick. how does this work? some of you are looking down and moving it comes. freeze on the thumbs for one second. i paid $200 for this next effect. [laughter] [applause] thumbs can wait. here we go. i did my coalition joke. here we go. when obama came along, he had a meta brand and we all got the

chance to affiliate to it. maybe you missed it. [laughter] then we all affiliated to it. that is why 2008 felt so great. the kids you did not have to quit your labor union to be a part of this. you did not have to leave your lesbian rights group to be a part. you got to keep everything you had. yet to keep your identity and everything you are passionate about but you could still put on the baseball cap and be part of something bigger. we thought you can only do that if you have a presidential candidate. but our friends in the tea party said au contraire.

look at them. they have their own groups. they came up with a ,eta brand called the tea party. no special effects. [laughter] this is an upgrade on what we did. this is not about a person. this is not about a single individual, no matter how awesome. it's about a principle of liberty in their mind and their meta brand got 3528 previously existing group, all the different names and causes to affiliate to something called the tea party. i've studied the tea party and i want you to know something. there is no tea party.

you cannot go to washington d.c. and go to the tea party headquarters building. go into the lobby, steal a , chat up the receptionist and ask to talk to the president of the tea party. why not? there is no headquarters, there is no lobby, a receptionist and no president of the tea party. this is an open sourced brand that 3005 under 28 affiliates agreed to use but nobody owns. they operate under a system called the contract from america. the contract from america was written by 100,000 people as a wiki. this is an upgrade. here is the hypocrisy and the

irony -- they talk rugged individualism. that's their whole schtick, right? this is the tea party. if you have a problem, don't look to the government. just be more rugged and more individual. and your problem will be solved. that is their shtick, rugged individualism. but they have enacted the most collective this strategy for taking power in the history of the republic because the use of open source meta brand that they all share and are based on that principle. you now live in their world 24 months after you got to change everything. here is the irony. they talk rugged individualism. they act collectively. where my going? where am i going?

we talked kumbaya and solidarity forever. we talk can we all get along? -- can't we all get along? but we have acted the most individualistic approach to politics. i should get that grant. did that get somebody? what's the cost? our guy got a promotion. now we are back to where we were. can we find a common banner to march under that nobody owns that speaks to an american value that we can all affiliate to, not in a coalition -- not in

a coalition. still recovering. in a movement. the american dream itself is under fire. the american dream we care about. since dr. king himself, the very first thing he said about his dream was i have a dream, it is a dream deeply rooted in the american dream. since we have something that precious that is about to be thrown under the bus so rich folks don't have to pay taxes, maybe we can have a movement to restore and rebuild and reclaim and honor the american dream and let that be the common banner week march under. let that be that common banner we can fight the dream killers with. [applause] that cheap patriots are going to have to deal with people who

believe in liberty and justice for all. that's us. maybe we can have in our country a real patriotic movement. maybe the time for that has come. here is the key -- we can no longer rely on a single charismatic individual. nobody is perfect. people let you down, but principles in newark. values are enduring. it is time for us not to have a charismatic leader but a charismatic network. that is the genius of the tea party. that have charismatic leaders of a certain kind.

but it michele bachmann and sarah palin and glenn beck had a conference tomorrow and said the tea party is over, it would not be over, because the networks would not let it. that is the next challenge for our movement. if we meet that challenge, i think we can deliver on the promise that we make our children every day when they say the pledge of allegiance, when they sing those songs, america the beautiful. nobody is fighting harder to defend the beauty of america than those working for the environment. give me your tired, give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to live free. there is nobody fighting harder

for those values than the elegant -- emigrant rights movements. how do we build this thing? they have their contract from america. we are going to do five things. people who are not scared to throw out ideas and hope we do not get put in a circle with the firing squad. those working for the campaign -- center for america's future and so many organizations. let this be the summer where we have house meetings all across america to talk about the american dream and what we want it to mean.

i am learning. crowd force. we are are going to crowd force a people's agenda. if you want to be part of it, go to rebuildthedream.com. we have a contest on twitter. we have a concert coming up in october, take back the american dream.

the roots are going to come out. next week, the roots are going to come to launch this movement. [applause] but we are not going to wait even one more minute or one more hour. this thing i need you to do is to start this movement today. go on facebook, go on twitter. today, at 2:00 p.m., just out these stores and to your left -- such a nice direction. at the wesley united methodist church, the congressional progress of caucus, change to

win, and keith ellison are going to have a speak out for jobs now and to rebuild the american dream. will you go and stand with the labor leaders and the elected officials who want to be a part of building this movement? will you stand with them at 2:00? please do it. please do it. let me close with something i have never done. and i said i would never do it, but when i was a kid, i used to watch cartoons, and my favorite cartoon was my original green hero. popeye. popeye the sailor, would get

pushed around by the bad guys the whole show, and at some point, they would take it too far. at a certain point, they would cross the line, and popeye would say i have had all i can stand, and i cannot stand no more. i am here to tell you, after a two-year smear campaign, not just against me, but against you and everybody we hold, i have had all i can stand of fox tv, and i cannot stand any more. you listen to me. these are our values.

don't you mess with our values. not love tell us we do our own country. fighting for liberty and justice for all. don't you tell us who we are. i am tired of this. [applause] we stand up for folks and we help people and we love people, the people you all run over. the people you laugh at and mystery. we see the effects of your cynicism and your disrespects endure hate mongering. it is not just immoral, it is un-american to abuse the airwaves with your allies an airfield. we are tired of it.

-- with your lies and in your field -- and your filth. you are not america. all of our children act better than you act. you are not america. i issue a personal challenge right here, right now, to my beloved brother glenn beck. i love him. dr. king said never let anybody drive you so low that you hate them. that is not our movement.

we can be outraged, but we don't hate anybody. the people watching his show cannot afford these cuts he is calling for. we do not want the tea party members to live in the neighborhood where if they smell smoke, they cannot find a fire house was then 20 miles. we do not want the tea party movement to suffer the catastrophe that would result from their victory. this is a moral movement. we fight for them, too. we do not want them -- let's be clear, i am mad, but i am not hateful. we don't want them to have their grandchildren going to school with 45 classrooms -- 45 children in the classroom.

we don't want them to have to wait 15 minutes on a 911 call. i issue a personal challenge to my beloved brother glenn beck. i will debate you anytime, anywhere, at any point. i will give you an hour, i will give you five minutes, but you will have to stop talking about us and start talking to us. you have one week left before your show goes off. my phone is ringing. call me, glenn beck, and let's have this discussion, let's have this argument, this battle of ideas, and let's fight for liberty and justice for all. thank you very much. [cheers and applause]

>> on saturday, representative thaddeus mccotter of michigan announced his candidacy for the republican presidential nomination. he made his announcement at of freedom fest independence day celebration hosted by waam of ann arbor. this is about 10 minutes. >> taking heart, despite the times and the weather. i will be brief today so that none of you get electrocuted. first i would like to introduce my wife rita. [applause] our daughter, a milieu, who is

thrilled to be with us. -- amelia. our son, timothy, who is equally thrilled, and not with us today is our son george, who is at work. which is something every american should have a chance to do. we here in michigan understand that our pursuit up prosperity and the american dream are in danger. we have seen a government that has refused to restructure itself for the future as we next, as our families have. we have seen a federal government that is trying to spend its way into prosperity with our money and it has failed. we have seen a federal government that has tried to impose government run health

care upon us, despite the consent of the people, and it will fail. we have seen a government that has bought into the midst of cap and trade and climate change and it, too, will fail. and we have seen a government buy into the concept that the wall street banks are too big to fail, and that policy has failed. but the one thing that will not fail, for it is to majestic to ever letdown lady liberty, is you, the sovereign american people. [cheers and applause]

through your hard work in your principal devotion to bequeathing to your children a better america, have no doubt that we will restructure the government for the future so that it is citizen-driven. we will restructure the wall street banks so we can grow our economy and shape the next american economic century. [applause] we will defend america from her enemies, and we will always support our brave men and women in uniform that are sacrificing so much for our security and liberty. we will expand freedom to the oppressed to ensure freedom at home for ourselves and we will stand steadfast with our allies in this endeavour, notably over

deer ally, israel. [applause] and all those seeking to break off the shackles of oppression, be it in iran's green revolution or in a communist oppressed blends guzman revolution, or be it those who stand up to chavez or decastro in latin america. just as we did on july 2 when the founders came together to declare their love of liberty and their own independence. [applause] because we understand five fundamental principles, our liberty is from god, not the

government. our sovereignty is in our souls, not the soil or the scepter. our security is in strength, not appeasement or surrender. our prosperity is from the private sector, not the public sector. [applause] and our troops are self evident, not relative -- truths are self evident, not a relative. these will guide us as we move forward into the future, a future which many in this country believe will be one of diminished opportunity for the people of the united states and

the next generation. i fundamentally disagree. for those who put their faith in big government, that might make sense, but -- that our best days are behind us, but for those who put their faith in the american people, we know that what we have a hard road ahead, we will have better days, and we will start now. [applause] too many americans, too many families, too many people are worried about whether or not they are still sovereign in their country, whether or not there is a new concept that worked were some individuals are considered disposable citizens,

where they are too small to matter. they are wrong. every single one of you, every single american is the fate and future of this country, and what we need in washington is someone who understands that the wave of the future is not big government, it is self government. someone in washington who will truly feel and understand the pain and anguish of 14 million unemployed americans, the feeling of being trapped of up to million -- 30 million americans who cannot find jobs because they are not there. people who understand that when inflation is rising and wages are declining, people who need to know that someone in washington, no matter how

derided or disposable someone else thinks you are, will stand for you. that is why today i am announcing my candidacy for the nomination of my republican party to serve as your president of the united states. [cheers and applause]

remember, the storms are coming. you may interpret it as any type of zero men that you wish. and so with your support and the support of anyone who will march beneath or beside the banner of the republican party, i look forward to working with you to ensure that once more, through the unfathomable grace of god and a virtuous genius of you, her free people, our free republican -- our free republic will again be a virtuous, prosperous, compassionate inspiration that will show all the world what a free people can achieve. thank you very much for having me, and i look forward to playing with the band. [cheers and applause]

she is still not thrilled to be here. >> he did that whole thing without a teleprompter, did you notice that? [applause] i am going to hijack this music stand here.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> from today's "washington journal," a discussion on more is happening in egypt and the middle east. this is about 39 minutes. now, samer shehata, georgetown university assistant professor on arab politics. professor, what is the latest on egypt? guest: president mubarak was

ousted on february 11, so this is a transition period. we have the supreme council of the armed forces. it is headed by the military in the have put in an interim cabinet. they have called for parliamentary elections in september. but the country is certainly unsettled. there is a great deal of political activity with different political parties forming, alliance is made, security issues. security is not fully back to what it was. there has not been reform within the security apparatus. the economy is faltering. so the transitional moment isn't settled. host: talk about the elections that you mentioned. in the last decades, we sought elections in which mr. mumbai won. what is different in terms of

the process and the way that this might be played out? guest: as you know the january 25 revolution was against this authoritarianism and electoral fraud. i have some faith that elections in the coming period will be significantly different. egypt has already experienced a referendum on march 19 in which the citizenry was asked to vote on a constitutional amendments that were put in the process of this transition period and would also modify the regulations governing the nomination process for presidential candidates. that went smoothly. people who lost those had some criticism, some legitimate, but there was no significant charges of widespread or systematic electoral fraud. i am confident that at least mechanically the elections, if held in september -- a sharp

period from now and many in egypt are speculating that because of the logistics involved in getting elections ready, that those elections might even be postpose to december -- but i have some faith that if the elections take place, they will be more than minimally -- have some integrity. host: a lot to talk about with egypt in areas in the middle east which we ask him specifically to come on and give us an update. we have phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. our guest is samer shehata, assistant professor for arab politics in georgetown university. you use the word unstable dairy political elections aside, what is all -- you use the word unstable. political election side, what else? guest: i said when settled.

many people, the vast majority, are unhappy with the pace that reform is taking place. certainly mr. mubarak past try all has not happened yet. there is a delay. there is some skepticism, quite rightly, about the democratic commitments of the supreme council of the armed forces. these are top military people, 16 of them, included in the ministry of defense appointed by mubarak, and there is some concern that they were shielding mr. mubarak as well as possibly other regime elements from prosecution. that is a very serious concern. there is also with regard to the security services, the egyptian revolution resulted in many deaths. they were killed by the security forces come about the use of excessive force, and so on.

many of those involved in the killing have not been held accountable for tried or not even remove from their positions. there is a great deal of anger and frustration about that. in the traditional period, people are arrested by the security forces are being brought up in front of military trials in a very expeditious way without full view process. there is serious criticism about that. host: where are the mubaraks right now? guest: mr. mubarak is in a hospital in sharm alshaik. the two sons, very prominent in politics and being groomed for the presidency, as many believe for the last day kidder said, are in prison outside of cairo

waiting on a trial. host: back to the economy. a lot of people are not happy with the change of improvement. guest: the economy has suffered through a revolution. you know that one of the major sources of foreign revenue, one of the pillars of the egyptian economy, is tourism. instability in change in government, the clashes that we have seen, have significantly affected the tourism. it is down 50% over the last month yourself. and foreign direct investment is somewhat jittery as a result of the unsettled nature of politics. that has also suffered. it is not a free fall for a collapse, but certainly not high rates of growth, not upward looking. host: let's get our first couple of call center in olive branch, mississippi on the independent line.

caller: i heard about an arrangement for all the oil from each of, or a great rid of that a great bit of that was going to israel, and they were not getting what they should. there were up in the care about this. what is happening with that? guest: i think the caller is referring to natural gas exports. egypt is a big exporter of natural gas in the region some of the countries that receive bids are israel and jordan. there has been a significant criticism of the sale of natural gas to israel because it was believed that the egyptian government was selling natural gas at below market prices. in fact, it has come to light that there was significant corruption taking place within

the process of gas sales that included individuals close to mr. mubarak. this has caused a great deal of anger. this is an raised a lot of people. it may be time to renegotiate the price, not only to israel but also jordan, and the pipeline through which the gas is exported to israel has been bombed several times since the beginning of the protest on january 25. host: 1 headline says that the imf has placed $3 million at the disposal of egypt. what is going on here? guest: this comes in the context of egypt reaching out to the world bank and the imf several

months ago and the results of the economic situation asking for up to $6 billion in loans and aid. the imf approved it this money to egypt, but egypt has recently redone its budget may be on like what they have been here in united states. they said that they are not in need of this money in the immediate future. they have reduced their budget forecast by 8%, and they are not going to necessarily go to the imf for those funds. they have managed to secure funds from other places come from gulf countries and elsewhere, and there is a political aspect to receiving money from the world bank. there's the perception and reality that all kinds of strings are attached, that these international financial institutions impose policy restrictions to cut subsidies, selling publicly owned assets,

and so on, market liberalization, they have not gone known -- that have not gone over very well in egypt. it is been a source of disruption. host: online for democrats, good morning. st. charles, are you there? douglas? caller: good morning. i am sorry for your question again? host: no question. we have a guest here and we're talking egypt. do you have a question? caller: yes, i do. you have little different sound but this is my question. if there were a poll taken in egypt and jordan, the question would be, should we tear up the peace treaty with israel? what does this gentleman think the poll would reflect?

guest: there have been polls taken a danger of egypt over the last four or five months, and there have been statements made by many of the leading political figures. one of the first things that happened after the revolution is that everyone who is important egypt, the supreme council of the armed forces, the former secretary general of the arab league, the leading contender, another contender for the presidency, the former director of the international atomic agency, they all say that the peace treaty will be maintained. is an international obligation and egypt will not change this. much of the polling shows that the difference have very mixed feelings about this very very critical of israeli policy in gaza and the west bank and so on. the colonization of the west bank settlements, and yet most egyptians do not want to go to

war with israel and are in no position to do so. some have said that the majority of egyptians want to abrogate the street -- abrogate the peace treaty. others have shown a small majority wanting to maintain it. the peace treaty is not going anywhere. the nature of the relationship between egypt and israel is likely to change. mr. mubarak was seen as an ally of israel, so much so that the palestinians suffered as a result of his relationship with israel very the other is his relationship with is your. relations are going to be much more matter of fact. i think -- and government will not be afraid of using his voice to criticize israeli actions in the west bank and gaza and elsewhere. there is a great deal of anxiety and concern in israel about the

situation for a number of reasons. as we know, one of the things that ingratiated mr. bork was his animosity toward hamas and his cooperation in the siege of gaza. egypt was essentially a party to the blockade. after that, they have not lifted but east that blockade significantly. the gaza border is open to civilians to cross, five days a week. the restrictions are significantly reduced. israel is concerned about the border. it is certainly concerned about what occurred in cairo several months ago. the reconciliation agreement to form a unity government, even though it has some problems over the last several weeks, the specificity of that.

so there is a great deal of concern that a very pro-israeli allied to the egyptian government has fallen. in the egyptian government becomes a power that is much more representative of the wishes of the egyptian people will have a much more critical position to israel. that is the concern in host: tel aviv our guest is samer shehata georgetown university assistant professor of arab studies. let's get some more calls. thank you for waiting for you are on the republican line. caller: please give me a second here. host: sure. caller: i actually like mubarak a lot. he was great for the united states. i even like gaddafi right now. i do not think obama has the

right to tell anybody you have got to go. we had stability with mubarak. and our own country, if we were getting into a violent protest, our government would ship them and arrest them. look at waco, texas. we rolled over their houses with tanks because it would not come out. the government will try to protect what they had and that is what mubarak did. the protest and the rebels started it, not the dictators. guest: joe is thoroughly mistaken. mr. mubarak came to power in 1981 and ruled for 30 years in elections that were regularly brought a lead through torture was systematic and endemic. corruption was very high. mr. mubarak and his cronies mismanaged the economy to know when 3 poverty in egypt is about

40%. there is no way that one can say that these authoritarian regimes are no good. we saw that in the revolution. the same with gaddafi, in power since 1969, if you can imagine. libya is run as a family dictatorship with his son poised to be the successor. mr. gaddafi has decimated all libyan political and civil institution, taking the country backwards. it is mind-boggling to think that libya is a relatively small country and with tremendous oil wealth, but has not managed to develop significant economic terms. and that as a result of mr. gaddafi's negligence and corruption. as we've seen over the last month, he has been willing to

use on limited amounts of military force against his own protesters. i think the caller is completely mistaken and i think most people would recognize that. certainly most leaders in this country and everywhere else in the west and elsewhere would recognize that mr. mubarak and mr. gaddafi were no-good autocrats. host: it was brought to the i did -- table earlier of that and they're not sure what to do in libya. guest: i support very much then nato involvement, as you know. the arab league for suspended libya's membership and ask for resolution. a libyan opposition has wide spread support in the arab world.

but i think is nothing more than a thug. but you're correct to point out that military force used at the beginning would have led to a quicker resolution of this situation. it is now dragged down for four must prove united states has been unwilling to take a lead role -- it has now dragged on for four months. united states has been unwilling to take a lead role. but the unwillingness to be more proactive, the use larger forces, to support their rebels militarily with arms earlier on, that has led to this prolonged conflict. that being said, there is no question that the libyan opposition forces have made significant gains over the last four months. this question was debated here in washington when mr. get out the's forces were approach benghazi.

now it is fully in the hands of the opposition as is misrata, and we're reading the papers today that the libyan opposition are proposing to move towards tripoli, even. there is no question that the support of gaddafi is weakening and it is just a matter of time. host: there will be some debate on libya on the floor of the senate this week. they are canceling their recess. oakland, california, nick on are in the deadline. the less on our independent line. caller: i have another question about the labor union movement and the possibility for the election.

is the muslim brotherhood still looking strong in the election? what are the parties opposing them? guest: and labor unions and elections. first about labor unions, it is remarkable to understand that over the last four or five years, the number one political protests and economic protest movements have not been the political parties and the muslim brotherhood, but has been labor, striking for better pay and declining wages. labor is certainly a reinvigorated force in egypt right now. unfortunately, there was a lot put forward by the supreme council prohibiting labor strikes, which is really and it ethical to democracy. about the muslim brotherhood, it is understood that they are the

most organized opposition force in egypt, and recently they have established a political party called the freedman justice party which was recognized. at the same time, however, the muslim brotherhood has been for augmenting on the edges, as we have seen, with breakaway members of establishing different groups and they have been criticizing the muslim brotherhood for their own willingness to bend, as it were. i think, although the muslim brotherhood is a strong political force in egypt, it would be premature to say they will dominate the coming election. there are a whole host of political movements and parties forming that i think will moderate come to some extent, the extent to which the muslim brotherhood will dominate. host: this headline came out

later in the week from cairo. what is going on here? guest: it is to reestablish contact, really. certainly the united states in the 1990's, as it were, had informal contacts with the muslim brotherhood through the embassy in cairo. more recently, from 2005 until the present, there have been occasional contact with members of the muslim brotherhood who are elected to parliament and american officials. they are meeting in their capacity as parliamentarians. i wrote a column in 2007, i think, in "the boston globe" advocating for the u.s. to participate with the muslim brotherhood. i think that argument is null and void now. at the time committee redeemed an illegal organization by mubarak because they were the leading opposition for him. it was a question of should the u.s. engage with an illegal

organization? they are not a terrorist organization but they are on the state list of terrorism groups. they are committed to peaceful political organization. they are not fully liberal, but they are a peaceful organization that is a part of the fabric of egyptian politics. the question should not be should u.s. engage with them, but they should engage with all political forces that are committed to peaceful organization. the brotherhood is one of them. host: from douglas in st. charles, missouri, on the line for democrats. caller: i have a question for you. i just finished lonnie johnson's book on europe. he talks about the springtime it revolutions of 1848, and i see a lot of things coinciding in the middle east with this. one of the things that i worry

about, they say the various promoters have changed the education of the masses and the violence that accompanied the growth of the constitutional government into the arms of reactionaries. my question to you is we are going -- are we going to stand with the people, as far as promoting rights, or do you think we will fall into supporting whatever regime comes into being at the cost of the people as long as it provides stability? thank you. guest: this has been a dilemma in the history of american foreign policy, not just in the middle east but throughout the world. unfortunately, the policy has more often been, until recently, that we support regimes that are friendly to american interests regardless of what that regime's human-rights records are.

the famous line, "he might be an ours."but he's that is a great alienate people across the world especially -- that will be a way to alienate people. mr. obama made a speech on may 18th at the state department and in which he outlined a new american policy that would put democracy first and foremost and would criticize regimes that did not make progress on political reform. we will have to see in the future what happens. egypt is a good case in point. if the supreme council of the armed forces makes good in egypt, will hand back power to civilians elected by parliament and the president, election democratic, if the security sector is reformed and there is a fundamental respect for human rights, and someone, then that will be a good relationship. if that does not take place, i

would hope the obama administration would then hold them accountable to some extent and call them out on those issues. host: a question off of twitter for you. will support for mubarak of a backlash against policies in the region? guest: yes, unfortunately. as you know, the united states foreign policy is extremely unpopular in the region. one of the factors have to do with, not only support former bart but support for other are authoritarian regimes across the region -- not only support for mubarak but support for other of authoritarian regimes. high-ranking american officials in the state department were saying on january 25th that mr. .ubarak's government was stable

the same statements were made only three days before the rise in tunisia. these are the antithesis of moderation if we are looking at human rights, the rule of law, these kinds of things but it is in jordan, egypt, saudi arabia. i would hope our policies would be more in line with our principles. host: lord on the line now on the republican line for professor shehata. ♪ caller: -- caller: hello. how are you doing? i have a couple of collected questions. what you think about the u.s. going into revolutions in the name of human rights when we do not know who the opposition is? the muslim brotherhood is not a terrorist organization, so why

such a strong connection to hamas? the muslim brotherhood in egypt, is it the same to the muslim brotherhood in libya and syria? guest: the first question about intervening, it is not a question of intervening but whether we should support on authoritarian regimes or not. and that is the first question. with regards to hamas, the muslim brotherhood is very much on like -- unlike hamas in that it does not have an armed wing. there are some similarities, however. yes, the similarities are ideological. they have similar accounting principles in terms of their views of the role of politics. a very different organization and in terms of the use of violence and military.

host: we will take a call from yonkers, new york, on the independent line. what is on your mind this sunday morning? steve, are you there? caller: hello? host: good morning. caller: i was calling about the state of the coptic christians in egypt. i think there's probably a plan to eradicate them. let's be clear here. there are churches being burned. they are harassed. i do not see any intellectuals in this country saying anything about it or caring about it. we have launched military attacks and attacked muslims all over the world. host: who are the coptic christians in egypt? how many are them? guest: 10% of egypt is

considered coptic christian, one of the oldest branches of christianity in the world. there has been rising tension as a result of number of factors. the caller is right that since the revolution, unfortunately, there have been a number of instances in which christians have been targeted, christian churches being burned. the question of christians, however, is one of citizenship. this is a main concern of the egyptian revolutionaries right now. they want to put in place a constitution that safeguard the rights for everyone regardless of their religion, gender, or wealth. i think if that is established, in respect of of how the muslim brotherhood does, -- irres pective of the brotherhood, i

think the entire nation of egypt will be better off. host: austin, texas. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span and for your guests for being there. with a defense budget of $700 billion, you will not stop the nation from meddling in other nations' affairs. i think american foreign policy is very shortsighted. i think the short sightedness of it gets us in more trouble than anything else. pertaining to pakistan, having grown up there in the earlier years of my life, and it cannot tell you the immense good will that was there for the americans in the 1980's when we were fighting the soviets and freedom fighters of that time.

the day the soviets left, the very next day everyone packed up their bags and left. that region was left with the master deal with on its own. come 9/11, all of a sudden they want that place to be fixed. well, no one was there for 13-14 years. we need to have a longer-term view. if we do not do that, there is no way we can solve our problems. thank you and i will listen offline. host: that may be a way to look at the broader question before we wrap up, but the remainder of the middle east long term. guest: this gets to the issue we spoke about earlier about whether the u.s. is going to support the democratic process in the future. i think the caller is right certainly in the case of pakistan and afghanistan. the united states lost sight of the importance of the region after the soviet the feet.

certainly, i would hope there would be a sustained engagement that would be based on mutual respect and upon the principles that we mentioned earlier. with regards to what he mentioned about dealings in pakistan and elsewhere towards the united states, people in the middle east largely very much admire the united states for its educational institutions, the level of economic development, the basic rule of law, and so on. they were to come here, a study here, emigrate here, but there critical of some american policies. that is really the issue. we know what those policies are. host: last couple of calls. bloomington, illinois. caller: first of all, i just want to respond to the caller that the military saved muslims in southeast europe in kosovo. here is my question regarding europe.

are there any elements in the arab spring in north africa that wants to integrate with europe? maybe in the future join the european union? at one time, the mediterranean was under the rule of wrong. -- rule of rome. i just wonder what kind of relations there can be in the long term if the people of africa look north instead of south or east towards the middle east. host: interesting question. guest: the idea of political unification is off of the table, but as the caller points to come to the major trading relationships and cultural relationships or with europe. there is something called the euro-mediterranean partnership. because of the history of colonialism, looking at paris from consul lanka -- casablanca,

algiers, that is the direction many people look. there is has been a great deal of emigration. if you look at the number of north africans in france, spain, and so on. certainly, increasing the strength of the euro- mediterranean partnership with regards to policy, human rights, rule of law, these types of issues would be better for both europe and north africa. europe has an interest in the fate of what happens in libya, tunisia, and someone because the rising economies in those countries, policies that respect human rights means less pressure on the populations to seek better lives and opportunities elsewhere which means migration to italy, france, spain, and so on. host: last call from santa maria, california.

caller: we know who the american rebels were. i wish you to give me a name or two of these rebels that we are spending billions to support so we can back their statements and find out how many times have called for the destruction of israel or the united states. that is all i need. host: final thoughts on israel. guest: i think he is speaking about the libyan transitional council in benghazi. they have come to united states and europe and met with officials, so i will leave it up to them to decide about their qualifications. i think the point is that mr. khaddafi has been willing to use and limited force against his population in that regime needs to come to an end. host: our guest has been host: our guest has been